Singapore Keeps Australian Terror Scare Pilot

[Samui Coconut]

Singapore air force intercepts Thai plane

Singapore (dpa) - Singapore's airspace was shut down for nearly an hour while two air force F16 jets were scrambled to intercept a civilian plane without an approved flight plan, the defence ministry said on Wednesday.

The single-engine turboprop Cessna 208 "was heading towards Singapore airspace," said the ministry's statement. The plane was escorted to Changi Airport.

The two "fighters were scrambled to intercept (the) civilian aircraft" at 6:42 pm Tuesday, the ministry said.

Police were investigating the incident.

The plane was reportedly flying from the Thai resort island of Koh Samui. The shutdown of commercial airspace affected 23 aircraft, disrupting flights in and out of Changi. It ended at 8 pm.

Sixteen incoming flights and six departing flights were delayed between 15 and 40 minutes each, said the Civil Aviation Authority.

One inbound aircraft was diverted to Senai Airport in southern Malaysia. The plane arrived at Changi later.

Aviation experts said the airport has been operating on an enhanced defence against airborne terrorist threats 24 hours a day since the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

[churchill]

I don't think there are too many private planes on Samui ? Coco had a sea plane some time ago !

[Samui Coconut]

I don't think there are too many private planes on Samui ? Coco had a sea plane some time ago !

The sea plane is still at the airport (rusting away), I rather think it has something to do with a guy who lives in Singapore but has 2 resorts here.......

[Gatorade]

I don't think there are too many private planes on Samui ? Coco had a sea plane some time ago !

The sea plane is still at the airport (rusting away), I rather think it has something to do with a guy who lives in Singapore but has 2 resorts here.......

Are you sure its still there? There is only one C208 based at Samui.

[Samui Coconut]

I don't think there are too many private planes on Samui ? Coco had a sea plane some time ago !

The sea plane is still at the airport (rusting away), I rather think it has something to do with a guy who lives in Singapore but has 2 resorts here.......

Are you sure its still there? There is only one C208 based at Samui.

I stand corrected:

'Singapore panic' flight was by Australians

Singapore (dpa) - An Australian-registered plane caused a 50- minute shutdown of Singapore's airspace to commercial aircraft while 16 flights circled, aviation officials said Thursday.

Two Australians were aboard the Cessna 208 Caravan float plane, which approached Tuesday night without an approved flight plan, prompting two Air Force F16 fighter jets to scramble during Changi Airport's busiest period.

The single-engine aircraft, which can land on water, began its flight from Thailand's Koh Samui island.

The Singapore Air Force tracked the plane as it flew toward the city-state. The two missile-armed fighters intercepted the Caravan and signalled the Australians to land at the central runway at 8pm, The Straits Times account of the incident said.

The two Australians were escorted away by police, who are investing the incident.

The plane was bought this month by Mary Cummins, who co-owns a tourist adventure flight company with Rhys Thomas, a former pilot with Australian airline Ansett, the newspaper said. The plane had previously been flown by an airline in Koh Samui.

Aviation experts said the air force has been operating an enhanced defence against airborne terrorists 24 hours a day since the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

Altogether, the shutdown of commercial airspace affected 23 aircraft, disrupting flights in and out of Changi.

Thousands of dollars in fuel was lost as the airliners circled Singapore while awaiting permission to land.

[Samui Coconut]

I don't think there are too many private planes on Samui ? Coco had a sea plane some time ago !

The sea plane is still at the airport (rusting away), I rather think it has something to do with a guy who lives in Singapore but has 2 resorts here.......

Are you sure its still there? There is only one C208 based at Samui.

I stand corrected:

'Singapore panic' flight was by Australians

Singapore (dpa) - An Australian-registered plane caused a 50- minute shutdown of Singapore's airspace to commercial aircraft while 16 flights circled, aviation officials said Thursday.

Two Australians were aboard the Cessna 208 Caravan float plane, which approached Tuesday night without an approved flight plan, prompting two Air Force F16 fighter jets to scramble during Changi Airport's busiest period.

The single-engine aircraft, which can land on water, began its flight from Thailand's Koh Samui island.

The Singapore Air Force tracked the plane as it flew toward the city-state. The two missile-armed fighters intercepted the Caravan and signalled the Australians to land at the central runway at 8pm, The Straits Times account of the incident said.

The two Australians were escorted away by police, who are investing the incident.

The plane was bought this month by Mary Cummins, who co-owns a tourist adventure flight company with Rhys Thomas, a former pilot with Australian airline Ansett, the newspaper said. The plane had previously been flown by an airline in Koh Samui.

Aviation experts said the air force has been operating an enhanced defence against airborne terrorists 24 hours a day since the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

Altogether, the shutdown of commercial airspace affected 23 aircraft, disrupting flights in and out of Changi.

Thousands of dollars in fuel was lost as the airliners circled Singapore while awaiting permission to land.

Plane to Singapore was trying to reach Samui

Singapore (dpa) - An Australian-registered plane that disrupted commercial traffic by causing a shutdown of Singapore's airspace was on a test flight and expected to return to Thailand's Koh Samui island, authorities said on Saturday.

More details have been unveiled about the Cessna 208 Caravan float plane that approached Tuesday night without an approved flight plan, prompting two Air Force F16 fighter jets to scramble during Changi Airport's busiest hours.

The flight with two Australians aboard was supposed to last 50 minutes. It "went off the air" two-and-a-half hours later, despite repeated calls by air-traffic controllers at Koh Samui Airport, The Straits Times said.

The 50-minute lockdown of Singapore's airspace ended at 8 pm.

The plane was registered to Mary Cummins on January 8, the report said. She and business partner Rhys Thomas co-own Kimberley Extreme, an adventure tourism company based in the Australian town of Broome.

Thomas, a pilot who used to fly with the now-defunct Ansett airline, was reported to have been one of the Cessna's pilots.

Police have been questioning the two Australians. The duo have not been charged and are not in custody, but their passports have been impounded, the newspaper said.

The plane previously carried Thai registration and was used by the Coco Seaplanes Company, believed to be defunct.

Sixteen flights were forced to circle while the drama unfolded.

The air force tracked the plane as it flew toward the city-state. The two missile-armed fighters intercepted the Caravan and signalled the Australians to land at the central runway at 8 pm.

The shutdown of commercial airspace affected 23 aircraft, disrupting flights in and out of Changi.

[sbk]

"friendly speculation" removed. Please do not post fiction and make it appear as fact. thanks.

[mikethevigoman]

"friendly speculation" removed. Please do not post fiction and make it appear as fact. thanks.

Can i pass that on to the pattaya daily news

[highdiver]

"friendly speculation" removed. Please do not post fiction and make it appear as fact. thanks.

the "friendly speculation" was posted in bangkok post as well...

[PoorSucker]

The plane previously carried Thai registration and was used by the Coco Seaplanes Company, believed to be defunct.

So Coco has sold the plane, now they maybe can pay the pilot they hired before his salary

[sbk]

"friendly speculation" removed. Please do not post fiction and make it appear as fact. thanks.

the "friendly speculation" was posted in bangkok post as well...

No the "friendly speculation" was deleted and was someone's theories on the reasons for the flight. The post was based solely on speculation and no facts but was disguised as if it were fact and only after being called on it did the poster admit that it was purely speculative.

[jumnien]

"friendly speculation" removed. Please do not post fiction and make it appear as fact. thanks.

the "friendly speculation" was posted in bangkok post as well...

No the "friendly speculation" was deleted and was someone's theories on the reasons for the flight. The post was based solely on speculation and no facts but was disguised as if it were fact and only after being called on it did the poster admit that it was purely speculative.

Yes, my imaginative opinion expressed was speculation; that doesn't mean it wasn't true. We all await further news and first hand knowledge from those who knew the COCO SEAPLANES troubled history. My experience is that most speculation and opinions in threads on TV are expressed as facts. I suppose we should preface every post with a bit of legalese and disclaimer.

[sbk]

Doesn't mean it was true or that you even had a clue what you were talking about.

Posting fictional speculation as if it were real news is something admin frowns upon.

[jumnien]

Doesn't mean it was true or that you even had a clue what you were talking about.

Posting fictional speculation as if it were real news is something admin frowns upon.

I certainly didn't mean to make it appear as real news and apologize if anyone took it as such. When I started the post by writing "looks like", I meant only to suggest that it possibly "appears that" something very fishy is going on here. As an airplane owner in Thailand I am quite familiar with the aviation scene and international flight plan protocol. I am as anxious as everyone to know the full story and concede that it is likely that we won't. It is far more likely that I'll here the real deal from others in aviation than from posters on TV.

[Gatorade]

Doesn't mean it was true or that you even had a clue what you were talking about.

Posting fictional speculation as if it were real news is something admin frowns upon.

I certainly didn't mean to make it appear as real news and apologize if anyone took it as such. When I started the post by writing "looks like", I meant only to suggest that it possibly "appears that" something very fishy is going on here. As an airplane owner in Thailand I am quite familiar with the aviation scene and international flight plan protocol. I am as anxious as everyone to know the full story and concede that it is likely that we won't. It is far more likely that I'll here the real deal from others in aviation than from posters on TV.

Well, as an "aeroplane owner" you would surely know that it would be impossible to depart Thai airspace, enter Malay airspace and fly for over two hours in this airspace without being intercepted. I would suggest that there is nothing more "fishy" than a missing Singapore ADIZ (Air defence Identification Zone clearance number) combined with a dodgy couple of VHF radios having not being used for a couple of years.

There is a distinct lack of coordination with Singapore Civil/Military. The last time this same aircraft was flown into Singapore from Samui (NOV 2006) the same situation would have occured but for the fact that we had read the rules.

(For SBK only, this is fact).

Gator

[jumnien]

The flight with two Australians aboard was supposed to last 50 minutes. It "went off the air" two-and-a-half hours later, despite repeated calls by air-traffic controllers at Koh Samui Airport, The Straits Times said.

Straits Times got it wrong then?

[JacknDanny]

Doesn't mean it was true or that you even had a clue what you were talking about.

Posting fictional speculation as if it were real news is something admin frowns upon.

I certainly didn't mean to make it appear as real news and apologize if anyone took it as such. When I started the post by writing "looks like", I meant only to suggest that it possibly "appears that" something very fishy is going on here. As an airplane owner in Thailand I am quite familiar with the aviation scene and international flight plan protocol. I am as anxious as everyone to know the full story and concede that it is likely that we won't. It is far more likely that I'll here the real deal from others in aviation than from posters on TV.

Well, as an "aeroplane owner" you would surely know that it would be impossible to depart Thai airspace, enter Malay airspace and fly for over two hours in this airspace without being intercepted. I would suggest that there is nothing more "fishy" than a missing Singapore ADIZ (Air defence Identification Zone clearance number) combined with a dodgy couple of VHF radios having not being used for a couple of years.

There is a distinct lack of coordination with Singapore Civil/Military. The last time this same aircraft was flown into Singapore from Samui (NOV 2006) the same situation would have occured but for the fact that we had read the rules.

(For SBK only, this is fact).

Gator

Nice One

[mattias33]

Doesn't mean it was true or that you even had a clue what you were talking about.

Posting fictional speculation as if it were real news is something admin frowns upon.

I certainly didn't mean to make it appear as real news and apologize if anyone took it as such. When I started the post by writing "looks like", I meant only to suggest that it possibly "appears that" something very fishy is going on here. As an airplane owner in Thailand I am quite familiar with the aviation scene and international flight plan protocol. I am as anxious as everyone to know the full story and concede that it is likely that we won't. It is far more likely that I'll here the real deal from others in aviation than from posters on TV.

Well, as an "aeroplane owner" you would surely know that it would be impossible to depart Thai airspace, enter Malay airspace and fly for over two hours in this airspace without being intercepted. I would suggest that there is nothing more "fishy" than a missing Singapore ADIZ (Air defence Identification Zone clearance number) combined with a dodgy couple of VHF radios having not being used for a couple of years.

There is a distinct lack of coordination with Singapore Civil/Military. The last time this same aircraft was flown into Singapore from Samui (NOV 2006) the same situation would have occured but for the fact that we had read the rules.

(For SBK only, this is fact).

Gator

As a licenced ppl pilot i dissagree. As long as the aircraft is maintained and book and papers are in order it´s no problem to take of. Within Thai airspace even without a flighplan, and if you tend to leave Thai airspace you hand in a flightplan 30 minuites before take of, no problem at all.

I am close friend with the Australian pilot (not this one!) that was hired to fly for coco before. He left the job a year and 3 months ago due to not being paid salery. Up til that date (dont know what happened after my friend left) the plane was always in flying condition, even though it was never flewn, or rarely, they could take of any day. They used it mostly for visarun flights to ranong, since the original idea "fly and dive" never got airborne due to lack off licences for landing on water.

(also facts only in this post)

[Gatorade]

All of this has no relevance to the interception issue. I realise that you hold a hard earned Private Licence but I have no intention of entering into a one to one argument on the Forum as it is not terribly interesting for the other members. If you really want facts please feel free to PM me. Just interested, but have you ever flown as Pilot in Charge from Samui? Also just for the record all of the licences for landing on the water at Tao, Plai lam, Ang Thong were obtained from DCA, Marine and Environment but not used as they could only be used Privately.Your Ozzie mate would/should have known this.

[mattias33]

Doesn't mean it was true or that you even had a clue what you were talking about.

Posting fictional speculation as if it were real news is something admin frowns upon.

I certainly didn't mean to make it appear as real news and apologize if anyone took it as such. When I started the post by writing "looks like", I meant only to suggest that it possibly "appears that" something very fishy is going on here. As an airplane owner in Thailand I am quite familiar with the aviation scene and international flight plan protocol. I am as anxious as everyone to know the full story and concede that it is likely that we won't. It is far more likely that I'll here the real deal from others in aviation than from posters on TV.

Well, as an "aeroplane owner" you would surely know that it would be impossible to depart Thai airspace, enter Malay airspace and fly for over two hours in this airspace without being intercepted. I would suggest that there is nothing more "fishy" than a missing Singapore ADIZ (Air defence Identification Zone clearance number) combined with a dodgy couple of VHF radios having not being used for a couple of years.

There is a distinct lack of coordination with Singapore Civil/Military. The last time this same aircraft was flown into Singapore from Samui (NOV 2006) the same situation would have occured but for the fact that we had read the rules.

(For SBK only, this is fact).

Gator

As a licenced ppl pilot i dissagree. As long as the aircraft is maintained and book and papers are in order it´s no problem to take of. Within Thai airspace even without a flighplan, and if you tend to leave Thai airspace you hand in a flightplan 30 minuites before take of, no problem at all.

I am close friend with the Australian pilot (not this one!) that was hired to fly for coco before. He left the job a year and 3 months ago due to not being paid salery. Up til that date (dont know what happened after my friend left) the plane was always in flying condition, even though it was never flewn, or rarely, they could take of any day. They used it mostly for visarun flights to ranong, since the original idea "fly and dive" never got airborne due to lack off licences for landing on water.

(also facts only in this post)

All of this has no relevance to the interception issue. I realise that you hold a hard earned Private Licence but I have no intention of entering into a one to one argument on the Forum as it is not terribly interesting for the other members. If you really want facts please feel free to PM me. Just interested, but have you ever flown as Pilot in Charge from Samui? Also just for the record all of the licences for landing on the water at Tao, Plai lam, Ang Thong were obtained from DCA, Marine and Environment but not used as they could only be used Privately.Your Ozzie mate would/should have known this.

I have never flown as a pilot in command in Samui. This is irrelevant as the rules are international (to make a long story short you can read about ICAO, google it). Indeed the PILOT would have known this. He was told to never land on water and the loggbook of the plane said the same thing. Licence for waterlanding not renewed. At least according to him and quite frankly i beleive him more than you. It had waterlanding licence in Phuket where it was based (with the same pilot) before coco bought it. But never here. At least according to the man who looked in the loggbook every day, saw to it that services where maintained and flew it!! And we where a group that wanted to use it privatly but waterlanding was NOT allowed. Very strange, would like to know your factsource..... .

[Guest Reimar]

As a licenced ppl pilot i dissagree. As long as the aircraft is maintained and book and papers are in order it´s no problem to take of. Within Thai airspace even without a flighplan, and if you tend to leave Thai airspace you hand in a flightplan 30 minuites before take of, no problem at all.

I am close friend with the Australian pilot (not this one!) that was hired to fly for coco before. He left the job a year and 3 months ago due to not being paid salery. Up til that date (dont know what happened after my friend left) the plane was always in flying condition, even though it was never flewn, or rarely, they could take of any day. They used it mostly for visarun flights to ranong, since the original idea "fly and dive" never got airborne due to lack off licences for landing on water.

(also facts only in this post)

Unfortunate you're wrong!

This is right, the maintanance and their records must be done by certified Mechanics, and if the Aircraft is foreign registered, it needs for each Take Off and Landing not an flightplan only but special permitt as well.

To take off with any Aircraft in Thailand a Flightplan must be submitted 30 min. before Start of Engine and the Filghtplan need to show: Name of Pilot, PPL License No., Model of Aircraft (let say AA5A if you know which bird is that), License No., Departure and Arrival Airfield, ETD, ETA, Navigation Equipment, Mode C Transponder Code and so on and this flightplan has to be submitted to next official Air Traffic Control Center or to the ATC at Depature or Arrival Airfield with official ATC by Telex or Fax.

The only exeption is that the airfield where your Aircraft is parking, submit a so named Group-Flightplan for Traning Flights which allows for all Arcrafts (which are named in that Flightplan) to flight within an Radius of 5 nm from that Airfiled.

If you want to leave the Thai Airspace you need a special Permit and you need to submit the Flightplan min. 3 Days before take off not to the ATC only but to the DOA as well. According to the AIP the DOA suggest to file the Flightplan 3 Weeks before take off! You also need an Permit to enter the Airspace of the next Country and so on. This Flightplanes need to be submitted together with an Copy of your PPL, Medical and Passport. You also need to Visit the Imigration before leaving Thai Airspace. And at this point the DOA suggest that you visit the Next Immgration Office with all you Papers in Original and submitted signed Flightplan a few days before take off.

Cheers.

[mattias33]

As a licenced ppl pilot i dissagree. As long as the aircraft is maintained and book and papers are in order it´s no problem to take of. Within Thai airspace even without a flighplan, and if you tend to leave Thai airspace you hand in a flightplan 30 minuites before take of, no problem at all.

I am close friend with the Australian pilot (not this one!) that was hired to fly for coco before. He left the job a year and 3 months ago due to not being paid salery. Up til that date (dont know what happened after my friend left) the plane was always in flying condition, even though it was never flewn, or rarely, they could take of any day. They used it mostly for visarun flights to ranong, since the original idea "fly and dive" never got airborne due to lack off licences for landing on water.

(also facts only in this post)

Unfortunate you're wrong!

This is right, the maintanance and their records must be done by certified Mechanics, and if the Aircraft is foreign registered, it needs for each Take Off and Landing not an flightplan only but special permitt as well.

To take off with any Aircraft in Thailand a Flightplan must be submitted 30 min. before Start of Engine and the Filghtplan need to show: Name of Pilot, PPL License No., Model of Aircraft (let say AA5A if you know which bird is that), License No., Departure and Arrival Airfield, ETD, ETA, Navigation Equipment, Mode C Transponder Code and so on and this flightplan has to be submitted to next official Air Traffic Control Center or to the ATC at Depature or Arrival Airfield with official ATC by Telex or Fax.

The only exeption is that the airfield where your Aircraft is parking, submit a so named Group-Flightplan for Traning Flights which allows for all Arcrafts (which are named in that Flightplan) to flight within an Radius of 5 nm from that Airfiled.

If you want to leave the Thai Airspace you need a special Permit and you need to submit the Flightplan min. 3 Days before take off not to the ATC only but to the DOA as well. According to the AIP the DOA suggest to file the Flightplan 3 Weeks before take off! You also need an Permit to enter the Airspace of the next Country and so on. This Flightplanes need to be submitted together with an Copy of your PPL, Medical and Passport. You also need to Visit the Imigration before leaving Thai Airspace. And at this point the DOA suggest that you visit the Next Immgration Office with all you Papers in Original and submitted signed Flightplan a few days before take off.

Cheers.

I know what you talk about here, and it is absolutely correct.

For roreign registered aircrafts and ppl flights.

That might be the case in this op then, im sorry i didn´t realize this.

The pilot before was a CPL-IFR with ATPL teory (and of course seaplane), and at that time it was Thairegistered as i understood it. But ok, if this was a ppl-flight with a foreign registered aircraft i stand corrected.

Sidepoint: must be quite a expirienced ppl pilot to fly it. It had more than 5 seats (requires 150 hours plus) and it was more than 5000 kilos i think?? That is the limit for ppl, but maybe there is ways around that one?

[yorkman]

I only barely understand the latest posts, what with strange highlighting in colours and odd quoting techniques

So, lets run it back a bit for clarity.

• Any international flight requires a Flight Plan (there are a few minor exceptions)
  
• It was a Cessna Caravan, it must be flown by a CPL minimum
  
• It could easily have flown from Samui outside Malaysian airspace, so that is irrelevent
  

So what else are the known facts? Changi is almost anal about security given that it was directly threatened by terrorists, so a response by F16 is not surprising. Its not every day the Singapore Airforce gets so much excitement

[mattias33]

I only barely understand the latest posts, what with strange highlighting in colours and odd quoting techniques

So, lets run it back a bit for clarity.

• Any international flight requires a Flight Plan (there are a few minor exceptions)
  
• It was a Cessna Caravan, it must be flown by a CPL minimum
  
• It could easily have flown from Samui outside Malaysian airspace, so that is irrelevent
  

So what else are the known facts? Changi is almost anal about security given that it was directly threatened by terrorists, so a response by F16 is not surprising. Its not every day the Singapore Airforce gets so much excitement

Im guilty as charged when it comes to the "odd qouting techniques"!

Agree with everything.

A responce from a millitary aircraft dont requires you to be in a terrorist area though. For years this was common practice also in Sweden (dont know now, have not been flying for 3 years) when a airplane without permit entered a specific zone. Could be a Swedich airplane entering a military zone without clearence, could be a foreign plane entering Swedich airspace without flightplan. Millitary comes up besides you and use international signs (wingtipping, nose up and down) and escort you to nearest airport where you explain what happened. As long as you follow the one (they are coming 2 always, both side of you and then one goes before you, the other one after) in front of you and landed when you saw a runway and he gased on to let you land, you wouldnt be shot down by the one behind!! Common thing around the world and you learn this when you take your first (ppl) licence as a pilot.

I would not think this aircraft (seen it many times and flew it with my friend) was able to do ppl flights, thanks for the confirmation!!

Edited January 26, 2008 by mattias33

[Gatorade]

Doesn't mean it was true or that you even had a clue what you were talking about.

Posting fictional speculation as if it were real news is something admin frowns upon.

I certainly didn't mean to make it appear as real news and apologize if anyone took it as such. When I started the post by writing "looks like", I meant only to suggest that it possibly "appears that" something very fishy is going on here. As an airplane owner in Thailand I am quite familiar with the aviation scene and international flight plan protocol. I am as anxious as everyone to know the full story and concede that it is likely that we won't. It is far more likely that I'll here the real deal from others in aviation than from posters on TV.

Well, as an "aeroplane owner" you would surely know that it would be impossible to depart Thai airspace, enter Malay airspace and fly for over two hours in this airspace without being intercepted. I would suggest that there is nothing more "fishy" than a missing Singapore ADIZ (Air defence Identification Zone clearance number) combined with a dodgy couple of VHF radios having not being used for a couple of years.

There is a distinct lack of coordination with Singapore Civil/Military. The last time this same aircraft was flown into Singapore from Samui (NOV 2006) the same situation would have occured but for the fact that we had read the rules.

(For SBK only, this is fact).

Gator

As a licenced ppl pilot i dissagree. As long as the aircraft is maintained and book and papers are in order it´s no problem to take of. Within Thai airspace even without a flighplan, and if you tend to leave Thai airspace you hand in a flightplan 30 minuites before take of, no problem at all.

I am close friend with the Australian pilot (not this one!) that was hired to fly for coco before. He left the job a year and 3 months ago due to not being paid salery. Up til that date (dont know what happened after my friend left) the plane was always in flying condition, even though it was never flewn, or rarely, they could take of any day. They used it mostly for visarun flights to ranong, since the original idea "fly and dive" never got airborne due to lack off licences for landing on water.

(also facts only in this post)

All of this has no relevance to the interception issue. I realise that you hold a hard earned Private Licence but I have no intention of entering into a one to one argument on the Forum as it is not terribly interesting for the other members. If you really want facts please feel free to PM me. Just interested, but have you ever flown as Pilot in Charge from Samui? Also just for the record all of the licences for landing on the water at Tao, Plai lam, Ang Thong were obtained from DCA, Marine and Environment but not used as they could only be used Privately.Your Ozzie mate would/should have known this.

I have never flown as a pilot in command in Samui. This is irrelevant as the rules are international (to make a long story short you can read about ICAO, google it). Indeed the PILOT would have known this. He was told to never land on water and the loggbook of the plane said the same thing. Licence for waterlanding not renewed. At least according to him and quite frankly i beleive him more than you. It had waterlanding licence in Phuket where it was based (with the same pilot) before coco bought it. But never here. At least according to the man who looked in the loggbook every day, saw to it that services where maintained and flew it!! And we where a group that wanted to use it privatly but waterlanding was NOT allowed. Very strange, would like to know your factsource..... .

Mattias, I really did not want to prolong this discussion which really has nothing to do with the point of the original thread i.e. interception.

However you have stood up as a self-proclaimed Aviation expert and it is clear that you are not.

My fact source.....I was personally involved in the operation for a long time and responsible for the log book.

The 208 can be flown non-commercially by a PPL. It has an all up weight under 12500Lbs. (8500 Lbs)

There are many other (Thai) rules regarding water landings which you would be unaware of. This which is why

we would not land on water as a private operation due to Insurance requirements and the fact that the Ossie pilot could not get his CPL renewed by the Thai DCA.

All of this I repeat has nothing to do with the interception. Furthermore, I would advise you as a professional pilot that when you quote ICAO rules be aware that many states (including Thailand) have differences and additional local requirements.

[jumnien]

If the floatplane could no longer be used in the Samui area as intended (water landings), was the flightplan to go to Singapore and return to Samui or on to Australia or? Why couldn't the Ossie pilot get his CPL validated by the Thai DCA? Great info, Gatorade! Very valuable to this thread which has generated much interest. Keep up the good work!

[mattias33]

If the floatplane could no longer be used in the Samui area as intended (water landings), was the flightplan to go to Singapore and return to Samui or on to Australia or? Why couldn't the Ossie pilot get his CPL validated by the Thai DCA? Great info, Gatorade! Very valuable to this thread which has generated much interest. Keep up the good work!

The ossie pilots cpl was valid. He flew it on water in Phuket for another company before coco bought it.

Edit: You might mean the later ossie pilot actually, and if i had a gues he intended to either come back to samui or to land it on a airport. This plane has the land/sea option at the same time.

Edited January 27, 2008 by mattias33

[Guest Reimar]

With Thai PPL you're allowed to flight the 208 Caravan VFR only and limited Cargo (Passenger pp.).

Required are min. 2 different Ratings: one for the Aircraft which is the High Performance and the second for Turboprop Engine. Both of them requires additional filght hours with Instructor. And in This case, you need an extra rating for Floatplane, even if you just take off and landing on hard surface (Runway) , which some of the Floatplanes can do because of an retractable build in the floats gear.

A Cessna 208 Grand Caravan need an CPL or if used for commercial Passenger Transport an ATPL.

Foreign registered Aircrafts allowed to take of and landing with single Flightplan only. The Group Flightplan for Training filght didn't applies for foreign registered Aircrafts.

All required information can be found in the Thai AIP for which every holder of an Thai PPL/CPL/ATPL need to signup for.

Yorkman:

• Any international flight requires a Flight Plan (there are a few minor exceptions)
  
• It was a Cessna Caravan, it must be flown by a CPL minimum
  
• It could easily have flown from Samui outside Malaysian airspace, so that is irrelevent

Not any International flight, ALL flights need an Filghtplan. Check with AIP or Thai DOA. May you call to the Safty Department of the DOA and talk with Khun Wuttichai about the Thai Regulations.

A Cessana 208 Caravan can be flown with PPL but Grand Caravan can't.

The airplane in question may wasn't enter malaysian Airspace but Singapore Airspace.

Just that for clarification. And if you need more infos about the Flight Rules, legal Issues and others related to fly in Thailand, may you sign up for an AIP of Thailand by the DOA and you'll get all relevat infos first hand.

Cheers.

[Gatorade]

If the floatplane could no longer be used in the Samui area as intended (water landings), was the flightplan to go to Singapore and return to Samui or on to Australia or? Why couldn't the Ossie pilot get his CPL validated by the Thai DCA? Great info, Gatorade! Very valuable to this thread which has generated much interest. Keep up the good work!

Thanks sunrise

Although not personally involved with this particular flight (thank god!) the flight plan would have been filed to Singapore and probably Paya Lebar where maintenance had been carried out previously. As it would be operating as a ferry flight under a temporary Australian registration it would have been destined for Australia. I don't know where but I would guess up near Brisbane.

The floatplane op ran into difficulties when we tried to change the licence from a private operation to a Commercial one. There were many factors involved in this but the demise of the floatplane operation in Phuket (Blue Water) made the authorities very nervous and they were insistent that we used a Thai qualified pilot for all operations. There were not any that could meet the stringent insurance requirements for water ops, therefore we had to make temporary alternative land operation arrangements.

We finally got permission for our Oz pilot to get his Thai licence (providing we also carried a Thai pilot) which meant a two pilot operation (even though the aircraft is rated as a single pilot operation) but during this time the funding from the umbrella company gradually dwindled and it was not worth operating off water until a commercial licence was issued. The rest of the story is very complex but the eventual withdrawal of funding and the intransigience of the authorities finally put paid to the operation.

A shame as it was commercially viable and would have been the darling of the Medevac insurance companies.

[yorkman]

If the floatplane could no longer be used in the Samui area as intended (water landings), was the flightplan to go to Singapore and return to Samui or on to Australia or? Why couldn't the Ossie pilot get his CPL validated by the Thai DCA? Great info, Gatorade! Very valuable to this thread which has generated much interest. Keep up the good work!

Agreed, good stuff Gatorade. So this was a non commercial flight then, ok.

I know the press tend to misreport this sort of thing, but "no approved flight plan" was mentioned.

If there were no flight plan, then it was an illegal international flight as filing in most cases is mandatory, and all that remains is the question why.

If there was a flight plan into Singapore, then unless they strayed wildly off it and did not get approval, I dont see why they would send up the airforce.

Possibly, athough very unlikely as they would (should) have used these earlier, it was a double VHF failure, as suggested.

There is something very odd about this.